Nearly all the donations come from ordinary people not
millionaires.

It seems despite the ‘we don’t whip’ messages from UKIP that other areas have taken a very different approach once getting elected. I would be surprised if Essex was the only UKIP council group doing the same.

UKIP push a populist agenda and will say pretty much anything if they think it may help get them elected. Some of the material they are putting out in Wythenshawe and Sale East is laughable, Some looks like it comes from a far-left group, branding Labour the party of millionaires. They throw silly money around on by-elections they have no chance of winning (see Croydon North, where they outspent both the Liberal Democrats and Conservative Party and then claim victory). Who exactly is funding UKIP?

UKIP portray themseleves as anti-system, firebrand radicals looking to shake up the establishment, and people are really buying into that underdog message in the media. The reality is they are a part of the same system as Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. They will harp on about parliamentary expenses, while at the same time they claim as much as they can from the European Parliament. They are funded by some very rich people, am I supposed to really believe UKIP are standing up for working people?

Yes, I agree, that all the bullet points could be achieved through a proper Party whip system. The problem is that it is not happening in Croydon as any visit to a Council meeting will show. The fact that both sides jeer at each other shows that they care more about abusing the other side that working towards a better Croydon.

I think the problem is that having whips, ultimately, creates adversarial politics whereas what I think Croydon needs is more consensus politics. There is no evidence that neither Labour nor Conservative parties want consensus politics. I feel that the people of Croydon want consensus politics.

Firstly, you start by stating voter turnout is very low – it’s true turnout has declined from historic highs (though in the 2010 – 65.1% and 2005 – 61.4% elections it increased) but to state it is very low is a very steep step indeed. In fact if you look at voter turnout across the globe between 1960-1995 Britain came 27th which isn’t what I would deem ‘very low’.

You go on to imply that Councillors are simply party robots unable to do anything beyond the party line because they won’t vote against the party. To be quite honest I think this is a childish conclusion. You can debate and argue against something behind closed doors and get your opinion across, and in my opinion this would hold far more weight than voting against something in the chamber giving fuel to the opposition and emphasising splits in the party. It is also wrong to imply that what goes on in the chamber is solely what Councillors do, constituency work happens all the time where Councillors from all parties work hard to keep their constituents happy. The numerous committees also work hard in trying to help the borough. Your argument about not following the party line will hurt them when it comes to selection shows an extreme naivety towards the selection process certainly within the Conservative Party. Local members from the ward they are representing vote on who they wish to represent them – so surely it makes sense for them to vote for a candidate that will represent their views? Candidate de-selection happens more often than what you have implied.

Your bullet points are just bizarre, all of those can be and have been achieved with a party whip system, fundamentally it exists because it needs to exist.

The one point I will concede is the value of debate in the chamber – it is very farcical and it would be good if real debate existed, but I don’t think that’s because of the nature of the whip system, but rather because of what members choose to state and the general feeling of animosity between both sides. Both sides jeer each other – there is no whip making them do so, that is what is more wrong in my opinion.

Voting UKIP isn’t some radical thing that will suddenly make you feel represented. Councillors work hard to understand their constituents already and do what they can to represent them but within a sensible system and without airing their dirty laundry in public. Quite simply what UKIP advocates is anarchy and I don’t believe there is any sensible political or non-political organisation in the world that would seriously go for such a move.

Of course there have been disciplinaries for numerous other
reasons!

Yes, public opinion is very hard to measure. But if a UKIP councillor knows their ward well then they soon get to know whether a resident’s opinion is a one-off or whether it is representative of an underlying groundswell of opinion. I have been helping my local community for a few years and I could tell you whose opinion I would trust as being
representative and those whose opinion I would play down.

I must admit it is difficult to get hard data on the issue of no local whip, mainly because it is not a easy to pin-down subject. There are plenty of local UKIP websites that tell you want the local UKIP councillors are doing, but their tend to be fighting silly things that their administration is doing. I have spoken with numerous UKIP councillors and they just treat it as part of their role. They are there first and foremost to do
what is in the best interests of the residents and businesses in their ward.

I think you almost got the setup right in your description UKIP councillors can and often do appear united on certain issues. However, they can appear to be disunited on certain other issues.

I like you implying that the Lib Dems are not a party of
government. I am sure that early on in the Coalition they said that there were a party of government! That is why we call the political establishment the LibLabCon; you cannot tell the difference between them but they con you into thinking there is a difference.

I have to say that if UKIP did not exist and if Labour became the majority party in Croydon I am sure that they will do the same to the Conservatives. So please do not think I am sympathising with either party.

If a councillor voted against an item in the UKIP local manifesto
then they would be required to provide evidence that their ward residents or businesses were against what was said in the UKIP local manifesto. If they could provide that evidence, through emails, online polls (where you can be reasonably sure of the address of the voter), canvassing on the streets, actually
talking to residents etc. then there will be absolutely no action taken. Indeed, I suspect, we would mention it in the Chamber at appropriate moments.

Regarding it not working, all I can say is that it is working in places such as Kent, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Aylesbury and many other places.

It sounds a lot like something that is very hard to measure. I’m also not convinced it would work – if, say, Mr and Mrs Cycleton are extremely active on social media and constantly encourage a UKIP councillor to vote to approve more and bigger cycle lanes, but lots of people who don’t want the cycle lanes are not on Facebook, Twitter or even the internet in general particularly often, are not Mr and Mrs Cycleton having an ‘inappropriate’ level of influence? (assuming a UKIP councillor would ever vote for cycle lanes – I am not sure that would be a particularly Faragite policy!)

I am intrigued that you say it ‘works with no voting problems on a local level’ – do you have any links to blogs or articles on this subject that provide hard data? My suspicion is that, as you say, UKIP members are likely to agree on things (though they are likely to have more in common than ‘democracy and less government’, if the experience I have of UKIP members other than yourself is anything to go by), and so there is a de facto (but not de jure) whip for the sake of appearing united but not ‘machine’ like the ‘LibLabCon’ as you so quaintly call the two parties of government and the Lib Dems.

The point I was trying to make in my article was that on very local issues it would not be an unusual event for UKIP to vote differently
depending on where they represent, particularly if the issue has a major local impact. So, for example, on the incinerator issue (and assuming that Croydon Council actually had any say in it) a UKIP councillor in Waddon (and most of the north of the borough) would almost vote against it because that is what local opinion appears to be saying. However, a UKIP councillor in the south of the borough may well vote for the incinerator because it might be a cheaper way to dispose of rubbish bearing in mind the huge land fill charges that are levied on Croydon Council as a direct result of the Landfill Directive. [I am not certain if it is cheaper, I am just using that as an example, so please do not get into a debate about that. However, for the record I would have voted against the incinerator on the basis of possible/likely health issues and additional road traffic.]

If a UKIP councillor has personal views then they would be expected to inform their ward residents what those views are and seek their opinion. For myself, if elected, I would like to use Twitter, email lists and even Facebook if it actually helps me communicate with the local voters. Other UKIP councillors might use other methods that might be more appropriate to their area. If that opinion is against their personal views then the UKIP councillor would be expected to vote according to the local opinion and not according to their personal views.

If they do not vote according to local opinion on a regular basis then words would be spoken. Ultimately leading to a disciplinary.

Please remember I am going through this in great detail
in order to explain the system. Experience elsewhere is that all of this just
works with no voting problems at a local level.